The Case for the Historical Christ

[Unknown Soldier]

The example was the we may not have participated in the historical event, but our lives were shaped by them and we are a witness and only a crazy person can deny those events to us as we have 1st hand witnesses accessible to us.

I think it's very harsh to judge those who don't believe us as crazy. They may have good reasons to be skeptical about what we are claiming. I can tell somebody that my life was "shaped" by something I claimed happened, but I might not be convincing. Do you believe everything people tell you changed their lives?

I didn't say "impossible". I said "evidence" and "indicator". As such, the conditional statements following your misreading aren't applicable.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I posted evidence that it's wrong to assume that a real person is needed to motivate others and that Paul didn't need a real Jesus to write his epistles.

If this is your standard of evidence, then I wish you great luck with your future endeavors.

Well, at least I can understand what you're saying here! Anyway, you evidently completely misunderstand what I said. I'm saying that writing letters about a figure is weak evidence for that figure, and that includes Paul's epistles in which he mentions Jesus. So letter writing is not my standard of evidence for a historical person.

With all due respect, your writing can use some polish. Most of the time I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

A number of Jesus mythicists have broken into the mainstream and passed academic peer review so they will need to be taken more seriously moving forward. For example, Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014) and Raphael Lataster's Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse (Philosophy and Religion 336; Brill, 2019). If you have the time to watch it and haven't already done so, I would recommend the debate between Carrier and Zeba Crook, the latter of whom is an atheist biblical scholar but defends the historical Jesus position, as do I --- though I am not an atheist, just for the record...

I am very familiar with Richard Carrier. I've read two of his books, Proving History and On the Historicity of Jesus. I've also corresponded with him via email and have watched his talks and debates on YouTube. Carrier is brilliant and argues well for his positions. I think I may have already seen his debate with Crook, but I will check it out anyway. I'd recommend watching his debate with Craig Evans if you haven't already seen it.

So what convinces you that Jesus existed? I'm not sure if he existed or not.

 

[guest1]

If I understand what you're saying here, the early church members' "shaped lives", even though based on events related to the life of Jesus in which the church members did not participate or witness, is evidence for a historical Jesus that only a crazy person can deny. In other words, the changed lives of those who entered the Christian sect in the first century is powerful evidence for a historical Jesus. Is that what you are saying?

So if Jesus was merely mythological, then his story could not motivate people to spread his story to others. It's impossible to invent a person and then write letters to people about that invented person. If that's true, then how do you explain Joseph Smith's story about the angel Moroni giving him the Book of Mormon on gold tablets? That story spread to millions of people without a historical Moroni, and the followers of Joseph Smith were very motivated to have done so. Also, Plato wrote a letter in which he mentions Zeus. Does that mean Zeus is historical?

Except the Apostles all were martyrs and died apart from one another over a period of 70 or so years . Who sacrifices their lives for a story ? No-one does because these men were EYEWITNESS of His Resurrection. Even secular 1st century sources affirm this was true of these men who were followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Stephen]

I think it's very harsh to judge those who don't believe us as crazy. They may have good reasons to be skeptical about what we are claiming. I can tell somebody that my life was "shaped" by something I claimed happened, but I might not be convincing. Do you believe everything people tell you changed their lives?

The direct answer to your question is: No. However the only one of us discussing the case of accepting such a low standard of evidence is you.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I posted evidence that it's wrong to assume that a real person is needed to motivate others and that Paul didn't need a real Jesus to write his epistles.

You stated the following:

"So if Jesus was merely mythological, then his story could not motivate people to spread his story to others. It's impossible to invent a person and then write letters to people about that invented person. If that's true . . . ."​

If you weren't able to understand, then let me explain:

• The first sentence isn't a valid conclusion from what I stated. Paul was writing to an audience with 1st hand witnesses present and therefore the case where Jesus is mythological isn't under consideration to the audience Paul was writing to. Therefore no conclusion could honestly be drawn from what I stated regarding the efficacy or inefficacy of a mythological figure motivating people.
• The second sentence involves an idea not present in the post you were responding to. An absolute like "impossible" was not present in any of my posts.
• The third sentence in the paragraph was a conditional based on the first two sentences being true. As both of first two sentences were not true, whatever came after the conditional didn't need to be addressed as it isn't relevant to the discussion preceding it.

As it is unlikely that you made the combination of you making these logic errors and then immediately wishing to shift the topic to your "evidence" is an accident. This suggests that you have an agenda to discuss the words after "if that is true". So my question is, why couldn't you just put your agenda in the OP?

Well, at least I can understand what you're saying here! Anyway, you evidently completely misunderstand what I said. I'm saying that writing letters about a figure is weak evidence for that figure, and that includes Paul's epistles in which he mentions Jesus. So letter writing is not my standard of evidence for a historical person.

I agree that writing letters to random people is weak evidence. However, nobody in the thread was discussing accepting that as evidence except you.

With all due respect, your writing can use some polish. Most of the time I don't know what you're talking about.

With as much or little respect to you as you appear to have given to what I stated, may I suggest that reading what was actually stated in the context it was stated in may be the crucial pieces missing from the puzzle.

 

[Gary Mac]

I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Are you saying there was no Jesus who did what the Gospels say he did, but he was historical nevertheless? Or are you unsure if Jesus existed at all?

Historically there is no evidence a man named Jesus who did what is written of him ever existed. But that isnt the point, the point is being identified with what is written of him in myself to have the same mind that was written of him.

Have you ever considered why Jesus never wrote anything? Or considered why Moses name was stricken from all historical documents? Have you ever considered why for over 2000 years Jesus has not returned and saved man out from this world?

The bible is not a historical document, it is a religious document and to understand it is has to be applied to yourself, it all is a metaphor for who we are supposed to be.

People are drawn to the sensational in the stories, theatrics, and that wow factor captivates the mind. Is it real? Did Moses actually do all the things written about him? What about Noah, did he actually build a wooden boat and take two of every species of plants and animals on this earth and sustain them for forty days and nights? And how did he redistribute them across this planet, let alone how these species crossed an ocean to go to his boat. It would take a huge fleet of modern day ships to do that.

Do I reject what is written? Absolutely not, I apply them to myself in spiritual terms what the book is and is about. It is about us and who we are. If one cant find himself in there in relation to, then your name is not written in that book of life in the Father.

 

[guest1]

Historically there is no evidence a man named Jesus who did what is written of him ever existed. But that isnt the point, the point is being identified with what is written of him in myself to have the same mind that was written of him.

Have you ever considered why Jesus never wrote anything? Or considered why Moses name was stricken from all historical documents? Have you ever considered why for over 2000 years Jesus has not returned and saved man out from this world?

The bible is not a historical document, it is a religious document and to understand it is has to be applied to yourself, it all is a metaphor for who we are supposed to be.

People are drawn to the sensational in the stories, theatrics, and that wow factor captivates the mind. Is it real? Did Moses actually do all the things written about him? What about Noah, did he actually build a wooden boat and take two of every species of plants and animals on this earth and sustain them for forty days and nights? It would take a fleet of modern day ships to do that.

Do I reject what is written? Absolutely not, I apply them to myself in spiritual terms what the book is and is about. It is about us and who we are. If one cant find himself in there in relation to, then your name is not written in that book of life in the Father.

You are really clueless there is more evidence for the historical Jesus than any other figure in ancient human history. You really do not know your facts but once again reveal your foolish speculation.

1-Ceasers "the gallic wars dates 1,000 years after it was written.
2-Homers the Odyssey- the earliest complete copy dates 2200 years after it was written.

Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts. Catullus has 3 copies and the earliest one is 1600 years after he wrote. Herodotus has 8 copies and 1300 years.

The New Testament on the other hand was written between AD 50- AD 100. There are over 50 copies dating within 150 years of the original. Scholars can date over 5500 copies to within 250 years of the original. There is an abundance of 5,664 Greek manuscripts from which the original wording of New Testament books can be determined; there are also 18,000 other manuscripts in several other languages, e.g., Armenian, Latin Vulgate, Ethiopic, and more.

It is rare for secular books of antiquity to have as many as even a dozen ancient manuscripts. Typically their best copies date about 700-1000 years after the date of composition. By contrast, there are complete papyrus manuscripts of many entire New Testament books that date from a mere 100 years after the originals. One papyrus scrap of John 18 has been dated to as early as 115 A.D., just 25 years after John was written!


There is much more evidence for the reliability of the NT text than any other comparable ancient writings. The evidence for the NT writings is so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, authenticity which no one dreams of questioning. It makes you wonder why so many question the bible. If the NT were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. There is more evidence for the historical Jesus than any other person in ancient history. Even the Romans account for Christ crucifixion in their history. You see man has one of 2 choices when it come to Jesus, either He is a liar or He is Lord. He doesn't leave you with the choice of being a good person for there in none good but God alone. The evidence for the accuracy and authenticity of the bible as a historical document is overwhelming when compared to other documents in antiquity.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Except the Apostles all were martyrs and died apart from one another over a period of 70 or so years . Who sacrifices their lives for a story ? No-one does because these men were EYEWITNESS of His Resurrection. Even secular 1st century sources affirm this was true of these men who were followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

hope this helps !!!

We have some stories that some of the apostles were martyred, but those stories are not accepted by many academics as truly historical. Even if all the apostles were in fact martyred, we don't know exactly why they were martyred. Many Christians assume they voluntarily went to their graves rather than repudiate their faith in Jesus, a faith they knew was based in truth. However, it seems unlikely to me that their executioners would have spared the apostles no matter what the apostles said to them. They may have recanted but were killed anyway. Heck, I see no reason why anybody would want to execute them in the first place. Who would have cared what the apostles' religious beliefs were?

So these persecution stories are not very good evidence for the claims Christians make about Christ.

 

[Gary Mac]

You are really clueless there is more evidence for the historical Jesus than any other figure in ancient human history. You really do not know your facts but once again reveal your foolish speculation.

There is none at all. All we have is stories someone wrote about it. Perhaps in another 2000 years people will read ancient documents about Luke Skywalker and how he saved the universe from the dark side in some religious document.

You miss the whole point of the bible. It is a metaphor for who you are supposed to be in the Father and like the ones written in it in the Father. And it isnt about just believing the bible it is an instruction manual for how to receieve from God yourself.

And you didnt answer, how did all those animals and plants cross an ocean and enter into a boat Noah built and sustain them for 40 dats and nights and redistributed them across this planet.

You are not looking at the bible in the light of God, you are worshiping the stories in it instead of applying to yourself who you are supposed to be in it.

 

[En Hakkore]

Nowhere in the epistles ... does anyone reference the teachings or biographical data of a solitary human, namely, Jesus of Nazareth.

That is incorrect. As I've already pointed out, Doherty is arguing from silence... even here it is quite selective since he/you must ignore (or misinterpret) evidence in the epistles that Jesus is understood to be a tangible human being who was born and died:

the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh... (Rom 1:3)

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law... (Gal 4:4)

[the Jews] killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone... (1 Thes 2:15)

In the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you... (1 Tim 6:13)

Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil... Therefore he had to become like his brothers in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:14,17)

For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. (Heb 7:14)

He himself carried up our sins in his body to the tree, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his bruise you have been healed. (1 Pet 2:24)

As for teaching, there is that on divorce (1 Cor 7:10-11), paid ministry (9:14) and the Eucharist (11:23-25). And I'll finish off with this:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. (2 Pet 1:16-18)

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[En Hakkore]

I am very familiar with Richard Carrier. I've read two of his books, Proving History and On the Historicity of Jesus. I've also corresponded with him via email and have watched his talks and debates on YouTube. Carrier is brilliant and argues well for his positions. I think I may have already seen his debate with Crook, but I will check it out anyway. I'd recommend watching his debate with Craig Evans if you haven't already seen it.

I hadn't seen that particular debate... thanks for the tip; I watched up until the Q&A started. The position you sketched in your OP and that which you have offered here are rather different... there you seem to take a strong stance against the mythicist position -- so much so that I felt compelled to offer a bit of balance in the form of Carrier's and Lataster's peer-reviewed monographs -- while here you appear more open to it, even praising Carrier as brilliant. He is certainly a well-spoken proponent of the mythicist position and I find him an engaging speaker, but I do think he's wrong. Were you playing devil's advocate earlier?

So what convinces you that Jesus existed?

You touch on the crucifixion in your OP, which is one among many "embarrassing" elements in the tradition (others include his baptism by John and being betrayed by a close follower) that are difficult to explain as the kinds of things that would be made up about a savior deity. What I find most compelling, however, are the diverse Christologies reflected in both the gospel and epistolary traditions, which one would not expect to find if the mythicist position were valid. It is suggested by mythicists that Jesus begins as a cosmic figure, a dying and rising savior god, yet their star witness Paul quotes an earlier credal formula in which Jesus is declared the 'Son of God' at the resurrection (Rom 1:4) --- this is arguably the earliest Christological formulation, which both predates Paul and is inconsistent with cosmic origins; it is precisely what we would expect to find, however, to accrue around a man thought by his followers to have risen from the dead.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Manfred]

So in the same way you can be sure that evolution has occurred because the consensus

Not true

Before Koch published his 5 Postulates, the majority of scientists believed foul smelling air caused disease and putrefaction.

Evolution proves itself to be false, but that is for another thread.

 

[docphin5]

That is incorrect. As I've already pointed out, Doherty is arguing from silence... even here it is quite selective since he/you must ignore (or misinterpret) evidence in the epistles that Jesus is understood to be a tangible human being who was born and died:

Your evidence is a house of cards. It doesn’t add up to a superman-jesus (which you admit did not exist) nor to a contemporary solitary, human, Jesus of Nazareth. It is your reading into the text what you presume is the Jesus in the Gospels, basically, your imagination filling in the Blanks that you WANT to be there, just like every individual indoctrinated into orthodoxy. We can take them one at a time.

the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh... (Rom 1:3)

If one reads the Dead Sea Scrolls a human being filled with the Spirit of God and “born of woman” is likened to a Son of God. Therefore, any human fulfilling the will of God, as the Teacher of Righteousness did, and Paul did, were considered a Son to God, all documented in the Dead Sea Scrolls up to two hundred years BEFORE our age.

“Inheritance is one of three works to emerge from the caves near Qumran that refer to a Messiah as begotten of God, or as God’s Son*. As Craig Evans has written, “These texts do not indicate that a miraculous birth was expected of a Messiah.” (wise, Dead Sea Scrolls, pg 417).

Moreover, there is an analysis this verse is added after the fact by a proto-orthodox copyist to strenghten the orthodox position.

Romans 1 Interpolation

In case you forgot, proto-orthodox (2nd century CE) were trying to historicize the myths as opposed to the gnostics who knew what they meant, since they came first (2nd century B.C.). Orthodoxy, can no longer say it was the other way around now that the Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered where a Jewish sect, namely, the Essenes, held tenets common with gnostics, for example, a dualistic theology, and a God Most High over two cosmic powers, one (aka YHWH Elohim) who destroys humans and opposes El (“THE GOD MOST HIGH“) and the other, the Prince of truth (equivalent to Jesus Christ) who atones for the elect and saves their souls.

 

[docphin5]

Not true

Before Koch published his 5 Postulates, the majority of scientists believed foul smelling air caused disease and putrefaction.

Evolution proves itself to be false, but that is for another thread.

The only group of people who reject evolution are religious fundamentalists, and they reject it because their doctrines dependent upon a literal interpretation of scripture which conflicts with the facts of evolution.

So think about the absurdity of the fundamentalists position: they reject a fact of life on earth accepted by every nation, university, and peer-reviewed scientist on the planet SOLELY due to their erroneous interpretations of scripture. It is almost laughable if it weren’t so sad. And, No, there is not a world-wide conspiracy against you guys. You are just led by false teachers and, in turn, mislead others.

The “War“ is on between truth and error, and always has been. The God of knowledge sends his messengers to enlighten souls, and the Prince of Satans, Belial, Set, Typhon, etc., sends his messengers to confuse them.

 

[Manfred]

The only group of people who reject evolution are religious fundamentalists, and they reject it because their doctrines dependent upon a literal interpretation of scripture which conflicts with the facts of evolution.

What did I write that is religious fundamentalism?

Before Koch published his 5 Postulates, the majority of scientists believed foul smelling air caused disease and putrefaction.

Evolution proves itself to be false, but that is for another thread.

Just because a majority believes something to be true, does not make it true.
The majority soon changed their minds and believed what Koch Postulated. I am pretty sure before Koch, they were as sure about the theory of Miasma as evolutionists are about evolution today. Yet they were dead wrong...

 

[docphin5]

What did I write that is religious fundamentalism?

Before Koch published his 5 Postulates, the majority of scientists believed foul smelling air caused disease and putrefaction.

News flash! Our knowledge of disease has grown logarithmically since Koch published his postulates in 1890. Pretty much all science has grown in knowledge exponentially over the last two hundred years to include the knowledge of evolution.

Evolution proves itself to be false, but that is for another thread.

No, you have proven that you are utterly deceived by your religious teachers. The conclusion that evolution explains biological diversity is not decided by religious fundamentalists who interpret mythical stories in their Bibles as historical facts, but by scientists trained and educated in the sciences in every university on the planet. They all agree (those who publish in peer-reviewed science journals/textbooks, as opposed to those drug up off the internet by religious fundamentalists) that evolution is the mechanism for biological diversity.

Your are completely and utterly misled by your religious teachers. I am your friend by telling you the truth. I may be the only true friend who will tell you the truth.

Just because a majority believes something to be true, does not make it true.

Agreed, but when all those people are educated and trained in the sciences then likely know more about evolution than your pastor or a self-proclaimed religious teacher on the internet with no science background whatsoever but who only wants to keep selling you his snake-oil.

The majority soon changed their minds and believed what Koch Postulated. I am pretty sure before Koch, they were as sure about the theory of Miasma as evolutionists are about evolution today. Yet they were dead wrong...

You are living in the history probably from some talking point that you read on a religious apologetics website filling your head with irrelevant data. They have you so turned around and confused that you have no idea what truth is anymore. I feel sadness for you, my friend. It should not be this way. My heart truly breaks for you.

 

[1Thess521]

Read Dohertys, “Jesus: Neither God nor Man”, a poetry of logic which demolishes any idea of a historical Christ, as written in the Gospels stories.
Most of his evidence comes from the Bible itself. To get to the point, does anyone actually believe Jesus was Superman flying through the clouds according to Gospel myths? Nope, so there was no historical Superman, named, Jesus. The Gospels are allegory, mythical constructs, written in genre of scriptural histiography, and many scholars recognize this.

Of course, there were individuals who had the anointing of Christ, for example, Paul, and the Teacher of Righteousness (67 B.C.), and others. So, in that sense, Christ is historical, having indwelled specific individuals.

If one categorizes the epistles distinct from the Gospels, one can easily discern the former describing a cosmic Christ who died at the foundation of the world, and the latter personifies the Christ as manifesting in the first century. The reconciliation between epistles and Gospels is that the Gospel authors canonized Paul’s epistles through personifying Paul’s inner Christ (Galatians 2:20) as the Yeshua manifest in the first century. As a genre, it means the Gospel authors INTERPRETED actual history and rewrote their interpretation into the Gospel narratives, —scriptural histiography. Simply, actual historical Paul in the first century = mythical Jesus in the Gospels anchored in the first century. Accordingly, the Gospel of Paul = the Gospel of Jesus.

The confusion starts when people assume the Gospel stories came before the epistles. Truly, the epistles came first then the Gospel narratives. The Gospel stories are mythicizing the cosmic Christ described in the epistles. The true Christ is cosmic and never a solitary human being.

The problem with Biblical scholars is that they are not likely to invalidate their own beliefs and practices of going to church every Sunday where Jesus is taught as historical, that is, the flying Superman Jesus. It takes someone willing to think ”outside the box” (i.e., outside the indoctrination of Christian orthodoxy) to objectively arrive at the truth.

or
" nearly all historians reject the Christ myth theory and accept that a human Jesus existed"

1. Stanton (2002, p. 145): Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
   Ehrman (2012, p. 4–5)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"So in the same way you can be sure that evolution has occurred because the consensus..."

Not true

Before Koch published his 5 Postulates, the majority of scientists believed foul smelling air caused disease and putrefaction.

In that case the popular majority of Biblical authorities carries little weight regarding the historicity of Jesus. If you can disregard the consensus of experts who assure us that evolution occurs, then skeptics can disregard the consensus of scholars who say there was a historical Jesus.

I haven't failed to notice this special pleading on the part of many Christians who want to believe in a historical Jesus but hate the idea of evolution. For them the consensus of experts is a great reason to believe in a real Jesus but does nothing for them when it comes to evolution. As I see it, the same reason(s) that support proposition A also support proposition B no matter how much I hate the idea of B.

Evolution proves itself to be false, but that is for another thread.

Just be fair and consistent with the evidence for evolution, the historicity of Jesus, and all other issues.

 

[En Hakkore]

Your evidence is a house of cards. It doesn’t add up to a superman-jesus (which you admit did not exist) nor to a contemporary solitary, human, Jesus of Nazareth. It is your reading into the text what you presume is the Jesus in the Gospels, basically, your imagination filling in the Blanks that you WANT to be there, just like every individual indoctrinated into orthodoxy.

Indoctrinated into orthodoxy? Surely you jest... the fact I reject what you mockingly refer to as the "superman" Jesus should tip you off that I'm unorthodox with respect to the beliefs of most Christians. I do agree with them, however, that there was a historical Jesus...

We can take them one at a time.

Sure, but instead of tackling Rom 1:3 head on you immediately launch into irrelevant and idiosyncratic claims about the Essenes and their alleged prophecy of Paul, make an allusion to Gal 4:4 (maybe you should have started with that verse then), attack the idea of a miraculous birth of the messiah (a supernatural claim of no relevance whatsoever to the position I'm taking in this thread) and finally offer one flimsy argument as follows:

there is an analysis this verse is added after the fact by a proto-orthodox copyist to strenghten the orthodox position.

First, thank you for implicitly conceding the fact that Rom 1:3 does refer to a human Jesus. Second, your interpolation theory to explain away this evidence is weak because the passage reflects a primitive Christology that a so-called "proto-orthodox copyist" of the early second century is unlikely to have inserted... it reflects a Christology in which Jesus is proclaimed the 'Son of God' at the resurrection (see 1:4), which stands in contrast to Paul's Christology of a pre-existent divine being and the emerging orthodoxy that amalgamates these and other Christologies of the early believers into one high Christology focused on his divinity.

Paul often cites (or perhaps paraphrases) portions of creeds, hymns, and other short confessions of faith from early churches to summarize his own gospel. In citing such material, Paul both affirms it and (frequently) creatively reuses it for his own particular purposes. (Gorman 99; he cites Rom 1:3-4 as the first example)

Virtually every phrase represents language or theological understanding not found elsewhere in Paul, which is why scholars think Paul adopted the language from others. Who would be concerned to identify Jesus as the son of David? (Other) Judean believers, so the words in 1:3b-4b are identified as part of an early Judean Christ-believing creed utilized by Paul. (Taylor 225)

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Eerdmans, 2004)
Taylor, Walter F. Paul: Apostle to the Nations: An Introduction (Fortress Press, 2012)

 

[Manfred]

You are living in the history probably from some talking point that you read on a religious apologetics website filling your head with irrelevant data. They have you so turned around and confused that you have no idea what truth is anymore. I feel sadness for you, my friend. It should not be this way. My heart truly breaks for you.

Actually it was part of my study material when I did my degree in Microbiology.

You have your head so deep in, you should pull it out at some point for some fresh air.

My point stands. The vast majority of scientists believed the theory of Miasma, just like the majority of scientists today believe the theory of evolution.
Like those who had to change their minds about the theory of Miasma, so will those who believe in the Theory of Evolution.

 

[docphin5]

Actually it was part of my study material when I did my degree in Microbiology.

If you earned a degree in Microbiology and still doubt evolution then you should ask for your money back for your education as I am aware of NO peer-reviewed science which challenges evolution in any significant way.

You have your head so deep in, you should pull it out at some point for some fresh air.

Same to you buddy.

My point stands. The vast majority of scientists believed the theory of Miasma, just like the majority of scientists today believe the theory of evolution.
Like those who had to change their minds about the theory of Miasma, so will those who believe in the Theory of Evolution.

Laughable. Apparently, that is the best of your critical thinking skills you can muster: "Evolution is false because people once believed in Miasma." I am curious, did you actually graduate from college? It is not clear in your statement. If so, what are you doing now with your degree? Because I cannot imagine any company being impressed with your position on evolution or explanation for why it is false. Maybe you should submit your explanation to a peer-reviewed science journal and tell me what their response is. I would love to hear it.